Culturalizing Achievement Goal Theory and Research

Abstract

This article is primarily designed to provide a cultural analysis of the literature on achievement goals. First, an overview of the four dominant approaches to the study of culture-namely, cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology, indigenous psychology, and psychological anthropology-is offered. Second, we analyze the extant body of research on achievement goals according to the three metatheoretical orientations of absolutism, relativism, and universalism and argue that cultural research on motivation should adopt a universalist approach as it is most consistent with a motivational science perspective. Finally, we conclude with concrete recommendations for how future research on culture and motivation should proceed in light of a universalistic perspective.Although the role of culture in basic psychological processes can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries with the work of scholars such as Herder and Wundt, work on cultural processes did not appear in mainstream psychological research until about a century ago and is still viewed as a relatively new focus of inquiry. Indeed, research emphasizing the link between culture and psyche did not take center stage until the end of the 20th century, with the resurgence of cross-cultural psychology (Jahoda & Krewer, 1997;Shweder et al., 1998). At the same time, given psychology's general focus on the individual and relatively recent interest in cultural processes, it is unsurprising that psychology's conception of "culture" has been rather simplistic with most definitions focused on either patterns of behavior (i.e., behavioral aspect of culture) or shared beliefs (i.e., symbolic aspects of culture). Much of the research on culture also has conflated ethnicity (and/or country of origin) with culture, or has treated culture as an independent variable. That is, there remains a tendency within psychology to treat culture as a static antecedent of psychological phenomena rather than an integral part of it, as represented by much of the cross-cultural work of the last several decades

Autonomous Motivation in the Indonesian Classroom: Relationship with Teacher Support Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory

“…King and McInerney (2014) argue that an imposed etic approach to motivation (such as SDT research in the non-western context) is inferior because it neglects the emic approach as starting point of understanding more universal aspects as proposed by Berry (1989). From a motivational science perspective, Zusho and Clayton (2011) argue that a universalist approach to studying cultural aspects is the most appropriate way. The universalist approach recognizes that certain basic psychological processes are universal (etic) but also highlights the importance of specific culture and context (emic) (King and McInerney 2014).…”

Measurement Invariance of the Student Personal Perception of Classroom Climate Scale (SPPCC) in the Turkish Context

“…However, there is evidence (e.g., Zusho & Clayton, 2011) to suggest that scales developed in a Western culture may give different results in other cultures. Therefore, cross-cultural testing for measurement invariance is needed.…”

“…Nevertheless, as outlined earlier, measurements of a trait in one culture may not apply in others (King & McInerney, 2014;Zusho & Clayton, 2011). There often appears to be an assumption that measures developed in a western context can be employed in quite different cultural contexts (King & McInerney, 2014), despite contradictory evidence (Bernardo, 2008).…”

Positive Education in Asia

“…A quick review of the Journal of Positive Psychology until 2016 (volume 11) indicated that only approximately 2 % (roughly 9 out of 410 articles) of the empirical studies were conducted in Asian societies. This is especially problematic given that culture has a key role to play in learning and well-being (Deiner et al 2003;Kasser 2011;King andMcInerney 2014, 2016a, b;Suh and Oishi 2004;Zusho and Clayton 2011). Moreover, several studies have demonstrated that the factors that promote student learning, well-being, and flourishing of Asian students may not always be exactly the same as those found among Western students (e.g., Ahn et al 2016;Caleon et al 2015;King 2015;King and Ganotice 2015;Liem 2016;Mesurado et al 2016;Low et al 2015).…”